19, 1995 receive court processes was in Manila and
would be back on April 24, 1980. 32. NORTHWEST ORIENT On April 24, 1980, bailiff returned to the AIRLINES, INC. vs. CA and C.F. defendant’s office to serve the summons. Mr. SHARP & COMPANY INC. Dinozo refused to accept the same claiming that he was no longer an employee of the G.R. No. 112573 February 9, defendant. 1995 After the two attempts of service were FACTS: Petitioner Northwest Orient Airlines, unsuccessful, the judge of the Tokyo District Inc. (NORTHWEST), a corporation organized Court decided to have the complaint and the under the laws of the State of Minnesota, writs of summons served at the head office of U.S.A., sought to enforce in the RTC- Manila, a the defendant in Manila. On July 11, 1980, the judgment rendered in its favor by a Japanese Director of the Tokyo District Court requested court against private respondent C.F. Sharp & the Supreme Court of Japan to serve the Company, Inc., (SHARP), a corporation summons through diplomatic channels upon incorporated under Philippine laws. the defendant’s head office in Manila. On August 28, 1980, defendant received from factual and procedural antecedents of this Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit the writ of controversy: summons (p. 276, Records). Despite receipt of the same, defendant failed to appear at the On May 9, 1974, Northwest Airlines and Sharp, scheduled hearing. Thus, the Tokyo Court through its Japan branch, entered into an proceeded to hear the plaintiff’s complaint and International Passenger Sales Agency on [January 29, 1981], rendered judgment Agreement, whereby the former authorized the ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the latter to sell its air transportation tickets. sum of 83,158,195 Yen and damages for delay Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales at the rate of 6% per annum from August 28, made by defendant on behalf of the plaintiff 1980 up to and until payment is completed (pp. under the said agreement, plaintiff on March 12-14, Records). 25, 1980 sued defendant in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the unremitted proceeds of the On March 24, 1981, defendant received from ticket sales, with claim for damages. Deputy Sheriff Balingit copy of the judgment. Defendant not having appealed the judgment, On April 11, 1980, a writ of summons was the same became final and executory. issued by the 36th Civil Department, Tokyo District Court of Japan against defendant at its Plaintiff was unable to execute the decision in office at the Taiheiyo Building, 3rd floor, 132, Japan, hence, on May 20, 1983, a suit for Yamashita-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohoma, Kanagawa enforcement of the judgment was filed by Prefecture. The attempt to serve the summons plaintiff before the Regional Trial Court of was unsuccessful because the bailiff was Manila Branch 54. advised by a person in the office that Mr. Dinozo, the person believed to be authorized to defendant filed its answer averring that the evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice judgment of the Japanese Court: (1) the foreign to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of judgment sought to be enforced is null and void law or fact.(See Sec. 50, R 39) for want of jurisdiction and (2) the said Being the party challenging the judgment judgment is contrary to Philippine law and public policy and rendered without due process rendered by the Japanese court, SHARP had the of law. duty to demonstrate the invalidity of such judgment. In its decision, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court. It agreed with the latter in its It is settled that matters of remedy and reliance upon Boudard vs. Tait wherein it was procedure such as those relating to the service held that “the process of the court has no of process upon a defendant are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. 8 In extraterritorial effect and no jurisdiction is acquired over the person of the defendant by this case, it is the procedural law of Japan serving him beyond the boundaries of the where the judgment was rendered that state.” To support its position, the Court of determines the validity of the extraterritorial Appeals further stated: service of process on SHARP. As to what this law In an action strictly in personam, such as the is is a question of fact, not of law. instant case, personal service of summons It was then incumbent upon SHARP to present evidence as to what that Japanese procedural within the forum is required for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant law is and to show that under it, the assailed (Magdalena Estate Inc. vs. Nieto, 125 SCRA extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not. Accordingly, the presumption of validity and 230). To confer jurisdiction on the court, personal or substituted service of summons on regularity of the service of summons and the the defendant not extraterritorial service is decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court must stand. necessary. Alternatively in the light of the absence of proof ISSUE: whether a Japanese court can acquire regarding Japanese law, the presumption of jurisdiction over a Philippine corporation doing identity or similarity or the so-called processual business in Japan by serving summons through presumption may be invoked. Applying it, the diplomatic channels on the Philippine Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be corporation at its principal office in Manila after similar with the Philippine law on service of prior attempts to serve summons in Japan had summons on a private foreign corporation failed. doing business in the Philippines.
HELD: YES Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
provides that if the defendant is a foreign A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and corporation doing business in the Philippines, binding in the country from which it comes, service may be made: (1) on its resident agent until the contrary is shown. It is also proper to designated in accordance with law for that presume the regularity of the proceedings and purpose, or, (2) if there is no such resident the giving of due notice therein. 6 agent, on the government official designated by The judgment may, however, be assailed by law to that effect; or (3) on any of its officers or This service is equivalent to service on the agents within the Philippines. proper government official under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Where the corporation has no such agent, Section 128 of the Corporation Code. Hence, service shall be made on the government SHARP’s contention that such manner of service official designated by law, to wit: (a) the is not valid under Philippine laws holds no Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign water. insurance company; (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a foreign banking We find NORTHWEST’s claim for attorney’s corporation; and (c) the Securities and fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary Exchange Commission, in the case of other damages to be without merit. We find no foreign corporations duly licensed to do evidence that would justify an award for business in the Philippines. attorney’s fees and litigation expenses under Article 2208 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to Nor is an award for exemplary damages having had a resident agent authorized to warranted. receive court processes in Japan. While it may be true that service could have WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partly been made upon any of the officers or agents of GRANTED, and the challenged decision is SHARP at its three other branches in Japan, the AFFIRMED insofar as it denied NORTHWEST’s availability of such a recourse would not claims for attorneys fees, litigation expenses, preclude service upon the proper government and exemplary damages but REVERSED insofar official, as stated above. as in sustained the trial court’s dismissal of As found by the respondent court, two NORTHWEST’s complaint in Civil Case No. 83- attempts at service were made at SHARP’s 17637 of Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court Yokohama branch. Both were unsuccessful. of Manila, and another in its stead is hereby The Tokyo District Court requested the rendered ORDERING private respondent C.F. Supreme Court of Japan to cause the delivery of SHARP L COMPANY, INC. to pay to NORTHWEST the summons and other legal documents to the the amounts adjudged in the foreign judgment Philippines. Acting on that request, the subject of said case, with interest thereon at the Supreme Court of Japan sent the summons legal rate from the filing of the complaint together with the other legal documents to the therein until the said foreign judgment is fully Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan which, in satisfied. turn, forwarded the same to the Japanese Embassy in Manila . Thereafter, the court processes were delivered to the Ministry (now 33. Golangco vs. CA, GR No. 124724, Dec. 22, Department) of Foreign Affairs of the 199 Philippines, then to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial 34. Barlin vs. Ramirez, 7 Phil Court) of Manila, who forthwith ordered 35. St. Anne Medical Center vs. Parel, 176-755 Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit to serve the same on SHARP at its principal office in Manila. 36. Oposa vs Factoran, GR No. 101083, July 30, 1993